1

Exploring the implications for community forestry of socio-economic diversity in

rural Indonesia

Silvi Nur Oktalina1 & Digby Race2

1 = Faculty of Forestry, University of Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia;2 = The Fenner School for Environment and Society, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

Research context:

2

• Indonesia’s population of 255 million people, with 80 million people who are forest-dependent (Poffenberger, 2006), with 20 million rural people living in poverty (WB 2015) & continued loss of primary forests (est. up to 0.8 mill ha/yr) (Margono et al. 2014),

• CF covers 3.6 million ha, with a standing stock of timber of 125 million m³ (MoF 2009),

• Government policy to expand community forestry to cover 12.7 million ha of state-owned land, with at least 5.4 million ha under the HTR program (long-term leases granted to communities for commercial forestry),

• CF evolved from a household-focused activity to include commercial enterprises (timber, NTFP, PES),

• About 15 million smallholders with 1.5 million ha of planted forests, mainly teak, mahogany & sengon,

• CBCF is a common component of family farms (e.g. up to 30% of farm income in Pati) (Irawanti et al. 2014),

• Yet most smallholders fail to realise the commercial potential of the trees they plant or appreciate the market specifications for log quality & value.

3

Research objectives:

1• Review of literature about rural livelihoods +

community forestry

2• Identify components of rural livelihoods

3• Calculate contribution of forestry

Research method:

Project study sites:

6

Gunungkidul(3 villages)

Pati(3 villages)

Bulukumba(2 villages)

KonaweSelatan (1)

Sumbawa(1 village)

70% farmers 45% farmers 80% farmers 74% farmers 94% farmers

0.5 ha 1.4 ha 0.7 ha 1.1 ha 0.75 ha

30% poor 22% 26% 29% 74%

Teak, mahogany,

acacia

Sengon(albizia)

Teak, mahogany, bitti

Teak, sengon, jabon

Teak

Little funding for forestry

Low access to credit

Long periods before returns

Low timber prices

Low capacity of extension org’s

Strong demand Strong demand Strong demand Weak demand Moderate demand

7

Characteristics of study sites:

Wealth criteria for smallholders:

• Land ownership (size)• House (size, materials)• Vehicle (type)• Livestock (type, number)• Occupation (type)• Savings (extent)• Children’s education (level)• Income (level)• Business (ownership, type)• Trees (number, type)• Education (level)• Social status (local position)• Electronic ownership

0% 50% 100%

Dengok

Jepitu

Katon…

Giling

Gngsari

Payak

Benjala

Malel…

Lamb…

Sema…

Farmer Wealth Classification

Poor

Medium

Wealth

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

Agriculture Estate crops Timber Others

Contribution to household from farm forestry

Weatlh

Medium

Poor

Livelihood assets

Policies & regulations

Markets

Management of CBCF

Livelihood outcome

Forestry Livelihood Framework:

Mixed land-use, integrated livelihoods:

12

Livelihood assets:

Human Natural Physical Social FinancialHealth Land House Trust Income

Productivelabour

Access to natural

resources

Vehicle Networks Savings

Education Managing different

resources

Farm equipment

Reciprocal relationships

Access to credit

Skills Land use Access to arable land

Norms & institutions

Wealth status

14

Diagram of livelihood assets:

Results:

Wealthstatus High Medium Low

Main product from CBCF

Timber Timber Agriculture crops

Main assets used to manage CBCF

Physical & human capitals

Physical & financial capitals

Social capital

CBCF input to household income:

16

• 20% of income from CBCF for ‘low’, ‘medium’ & ‘high’ wealth households,

• 65% of CBCF income from non-timber products (e.g. agriculture, NTFPs) for ‘low’ wealth households,

• 50% of CBCF income fromtimber products for ‘medium’ &

‘high’ wealth households.

Some key findings:• Livelihood assets provide a guide to household resilience &

interest in CBCF (short c/f long-rotation options, gender roles),

• CBCF crosses agriculture & forestry, household & commercial mkts, private & public land need ‘bridging’ policies,

• Weak link between farmers’ silviculture & market demand (historical practices c/f contemporary markets),

• Extension support needs to be less prescriptive & more enabling (build capacity),

• Focus on FFGs for capacity building (e.g. link markets & silviculture, FFGs beyond single project).

17

Focus of future research:

• To understand how the social networks of smallholders vary across wealth categories;

• To explore the coincidence of social networks & market pathways (i.e. business networks);

• To explore options for enhancing the business networks for smallholders;

• To develop strategies to scale-up & scale-out the capacity of local farmer groups.

18